- 學位論文
教師解聘、停聘、不續聘事由之研究-以性侵害、性騷擾、性霸凌為中心
A Study On The Reason of Dismissed, Suspended or Denied A Renewed Employment of Teachers: Centered on Sexual Assault、Sexual Harassment And Sex Bully
摘要
教師法第14條第1項眾多解聘事由裡，又以性騷擾、性霸凌之解聘事由最為有爭議，因為性騷擾本身之定義就十分模糊，且目前實務上學校依性別平等教育法組成之性別平等教育委員會是否有認定性騷擾、性霸凌之專業能力，又性平會之調查過程是否嚴謹、給予當事人教師之防禦程序是否充足、有無對證人詰問之權利等等皆對於性騷擾認定事實之過程存有爭議，更甚者，目前實務上對於性平會於個案中認定有無成立性騷擾皆採取非常寬鬆之審查標準 ，理由不外乎以性騷擾，乃屬不確定之法律概念，具高度屬人性，性平會及教評會，自亦擁有判斷餘地，法院亦僅採取「較低之審查密度」，此種看法是否正確，本文將探討之。最後有關性騷擾是否需情節重大方得以解聘，目前尚有爭議，本篇文章將就此爭議詳細探討。
並列摘要
Sexual Harassment and sex bully are the most controversy issue in Teachers’ Act article 14 due to it’s ambiguous definition. Beside, there are still remain many issues such as, if the gender equality committee has enough capability to deal with Sexual Harassment and sex bully cases, if it’s investigation process fair, if it’s impose due process, if it’s provide cross examination etc. Moreover, administrative court mostly stand in the school’s side and accept gender equality committee’s decisions, because gender equality committee is considered of a professional unit, court should respect their decisions. But those view point may not right, the following page will discuss it.